I helped put up a 64' Trylon last year that used this method, on my
suggestion. The chap was having pilings drilled and a cement garage pad
poured so it made sense to pop 3 extra holes for the tower. Think the holes
were roughly 12 feet deep and either 12 or 16 inch diameter, with a rebar
cage.
If cement is hard to come by or to get to the site, I think an even better
solution is augured in pilings - heavy wall pipe with auger flutes welded to
them. The top is usually tied (welded) together with heavy angle or plate
material to which the tower is attached. If the auger truck has a welder
and a multipurpose boom (auger or lift) you can get them to stand up the
tower as well. Start to finish, one contractor and no waiting for cement to
dry. No dirt to get rid of and no standing water issues either.
In most areas, I'm sure it is considerably more economical to use either
method (especially the latter) than the big blob of cement. The augured
pilings can be recovered and reused if you need to.
There's no reason to just apply this to self support bases. Guyed towers
can benefit just as much.
73 Don
VE6JY
----------------------------------------------------------
AlfaSpid Rotators at: www.alfaradio.ca
----------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "BILL STRAW" <wb0o@yahoo.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 04:11
Subject: [Towertalk] Tower Bases
> A new cell tower was put up down the road a few weeks
> ago, and I went over to check it out. It is a tripod
> freestanding and at least 150'.The tripod at the base
> is about 12 feed on a side. The base is augured holes
> filled with concrete, of unknown depth. One hole under
> each leg, I think most of us have seen this kind of
> base. Question: can this base be used with a smaller
> self supporting tower, say 5 feet on a side. It sure
> seems like it would be easy to auger an 18" diameter
> say 8 foot deep hole under each leg of a Trylon tower,
> rather then the massive 6' X 6' X 6' chunk of conrete
> that is indicated. Why isn't this type of base used
> for smaller towers?
>
> Bill WB0O
>